memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Favourite Son
Favorite Son redirect ;"Favourite Son" : Misspelled redirect to . --Shran 09:20, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'- we have no tolerance for British English here. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 12:02, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' I am British, but I wouldn't expect an American website to have British spelling. Tough Little Ship 12:07, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Keep'. Redirects should be deleted if they make it difficult to locate a similarly named article, might cause confusion, are offensive or simply make no sense (see ). Nothing of this applies here - in fact, it seems to be a very useful redirect for someone searching for that episode without being aware of the "correct" spelling. -- Cid Highwind 12:44, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) :*Ahh. Very good points indeed. I guess I'll go with keep, then. --Shran 13:32, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I also agree with cid, Keep Tobyk777 00:01, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC) *This reminds me of when my redirect from Kubus to Kubus Oak kept disappearing (not sure who deleted it), probably because the only page linking to it was . As Cid said, redirects are for people who don't know the "correct" spelling, and even in cases where it seems unlikely - ie an arguably forgettable character like Kubus or an arguably obvious spelling like this - what harm could it do? Keep. --Schrei 14:44, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I think this might be a case for expanding Memory Alpha:List of useful redirects -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:09, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***Agreed... while the admins should be more careful when it comes to immediately deleting redirects which could potentially be useful, those who created them should also remember to place a link to them on the useful redirects page so it's certain they were created for a purpose. Keep. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 16:35, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Im not sure I like this. We've already, previously agreed upon using what appeared on the title card, and clearly Commonwealth English wasn't used. If we have links (redirects or otherwise) to what is more-or-less considered "mis-spelled" terms, then people are going to start linking to them with-in articles, in which case, they are going to go from being so-called "useful redirects" to practical links. Then we would have to create links for all of the other "mis-spelled" episode titles "Judgement" (-->Judgment, which we've deleted before) and really, do we want to open that can of worms? --Alan del Beccio 19:47, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete', agreed. And not just cause it'd be a big project making a bunch of redirects, just because we have decided on using American english on several occasions. - AJHalliwell 00:51, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Redirect', for those of us who speak real English. Jaz 02:49, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I think what you meant was keep since it's already a redirect. :) I discovered earlier that it's acceptable on MA for someone to arbitrarily "correct" Commonwealth spelling in articles based on the fact that Trek is made in the US. By that logic (regardless of its merits), I have to say delete. --Schrei 02:51, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) *My worry is about people who may be searching based only on hearing the name of the episode. This is not a spelling mistake, it is the commonly accepted language in most English speaking countries. While I am unsure since I do not own any DVDs, it is possible that in many regions it may be listed with the correct spelling (favourite). Jaz 21:54, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Jaz- British English is not any more real than American English. In everyday writing, "favourite" is no better or worse than "favorite." However, since Star Trek is American, its titles are too. I've gone through articles changing it from British to American English for this very reason. Favorite is correct here. See this in Ten Forward. As for the redirect, delete it, like I said earlier. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 22:37, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***It's their language and we changed the spelling because we're lazy, give them credit where it's due. But this is harmless redirect because if you're so sure that fans will type it in right then you should be equally sure that fans won't link to it as mentioned above. There's no reason not to keep this. Ben Sisqo 04:28, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) **You know, this might be appropriate to keep as a redirect but add a link to it to Memory Alpha:List of common misspellings -- in this manner, we can have all links to the redirect automatically listed or changed -- basically, keeping the redirect so the articles stay connected if a non-American English writer writes a European English link, but having an easy ability to find and correct the links through the "common misspelling" resource. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 04:34, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***Well my point is, is how do we keep it from weaseling its way into articles, which would suddenly take from the level of being a "redirect" to a "commonly accepted usage of the term"? If we keep it then that means we would have to periodically police the 'what links here' to make sure that it is only being used as a redirect and not as a "real" link, as from the American pov AND the title card spelling, it is not a "common spelling", and it technically misspelled from both the title card and script written in the American usage of English pov. --Alan del Beccio 05:06, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) ****The Memory Alpha:List of common misspellings page feeds an automatic search function at "Special:Maintenance" that lists all recognized misspellings -- we simply have to run a bot through every once in a while and fix all the links. Kobi does this from time to time, he does it very well. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 05:24, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) ****The Memory Alpha:List of useful redirects has a separate section for Non-American spellings now -- any redirects added there could be periodically monitored for links, and altered accordingly. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 05:24, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Alan is right now that I think about it. Although I said delete earlier, I want to reiterate it with less snippitiness because I can see what he means now. If someone types in Favourite Son, I think they can take a hint and figure out why it's not there, right? --Schrei 06:17, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) **My count is approximately 7 to 4 in favour of keeping, after two weeks -- could we call this one finished?. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:12, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::*No, I would not call it finished. In terms of the correctness of the title, "Favourite" is just as correct as "Faverit." Do you want a redirect for that? Like Schrei said, if someone types in "Favourite," and gets nothing, they can take a hint and remember that since Star Trek is American, they might just spell it without the u. I know I've said it twice before, but delete the misspelled redirect. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 03:23, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. If this stays, I'm creating Rules of Aquisition, Profit Motive, Rocks and Shawls, Code of Honour, Angel 1, Hide and Cue, Cumming of Age, Minds Eye, Cathexus, Persistance of Vision, Dessert Crossing, Two Days and Two Knights (and 2 Days and 2 Nights), Visa Vis, Someone to Watch O'er Me, Furry (for ), That Witch Survives, and Manoeuvers. They'd all be allowed under this precedent (or is it president? better make a redirect). Ben Sisqo 03:41, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) :*I'm not sure what to think here anymore. When I first nominated it, I was going on the basis that only what was used in the title card is accepted. Then I changed my mind when Cid brought up some good reasons to keep it. Now, I just don't know. But for now, I'm sticking with my last vote of keep -- which means I went back on the first vote I had, which was to delete. But since I was the one that brought it up and since I am now taking it back... doesn't that mean it can be removed now? I may be wrong. In fact, I probably am. Oh, well. (BTW, I struck out both my delete vote and my previous keep vote to avoid confusion.) --From Andoria with Love 03:44, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::*'Comment': Re: Ben Sisqo. The redirects for Judgment and Code of Honor I understand... but I think the others are going just a wee bit overboard, especially the "Cumming of Age" and "Two and Two Knights". --From Andoria with Love 03:58, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *LOL Cumming of Age... I'm persuaded to say delete from that alone. - Vedek Dukat 04:08, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Memory Alpha is meant to be a Star Trek resource available to everyone. If the average English, Canadian, Australian, ect child is looking up this episode, it is unlikely they will remember the America arbitrarily decided to change the spelling. This IS NOT the same as "faverit". It is the commonly accepted spelling in most places in the world. There is no harm in a re-direct, in fact it improves MA by making it simpler for people to search. I therefor maintain that we keep this redirect.Jaz 04:20, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. Not really, it just wastes time by having us sit and argue about this. Coke 04:30, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) * I've tallied 7 to 7, at the moment. And the way I still see it is that this isn't even about American v. Commonwealth English, this is about what is in the scripts, what is on the title cards -- you know stuff everyone is usually otherwise super anal about around here. And like Schrei said, if you haven't figured it out, yet, somehow managed to find this page (which isn't exactly advertised on the tv between the eHarmony ads and eBays commercials), then good god, that's what google is for! Or better yet, go to the page title Star Trek: Voyager and scroll through the episodes. Laziness is a disease, I tell ya. Anywho, if we accept those spellings then we should accept the spellings from closed captioning, the star trek encyclopedia and other secondary sources that are not quite right but acceptable, since that is essentially what this is about. For that matter, just how many redirects are we going to get out of ? Actually, that reminds me, there was a time I created the useful redirect Galoway to Galloway because that is how it was spelled in the end credits and a fellow user wanted to delete it, despite the fact that it was used on screen; at least it was useful for someone who was going off of the name as they read it in the credits, so I really don't see how they can support this, but, at the time, not that. --Alan del Beccio 04:40, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. This cot my eye in the recentchanges list because I wondered why it was favourite. But let me clarify, as someone who was tot english as a second language, that this is unnecessary even for people like me. The likelihood that someone is familiar enough to type in the name of a specific episode and not familiar enough to know to use American spelling is so small that it's like the saying: If you need to ask, you don't deserve to know. Makon 05:01, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *I think it's like Mike said, it's been over two weeks now & it's clear a majority think we should delete it even if the tally is closer now. Just get it over with already or I'm Cumming of Age. :oP Ben Sisqo 16:29, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Sisqo, creating redirects only because of this discussion is vandalism. --Memory 22:23, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' - unnecessary --Memory 22:23, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *I think the "Favourite Son" and "Code of Honour" redirects are more valids as Redirects because of the English writing rules, than the "Geordi LaForge" redirect to Geordi La Forge which is indeed a spelling error, keep (oh and if anyone wants a spelling correction bot, I'm willing to teach how to control one) -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 09:39, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Oh, what madness hath I wrought?! --From Andoria with Love 09:45, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Enough to make me say delete. ^_^ 1985 09:47, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Keep'. states: Delete a redirect if 1) the redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine (not the case here, in fact it helps locating the article), 2) the redirect might cause confusion (not the case here), 3) the redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (not the case here), 4) the redirect makes no sense (not the case here). There's simply no harm in keeping this redirect to aid searches for the episode. However, we can add it to the misspellings page at the same time to avoid that this redirect is linked to directly. This doesn't mean that we should go around and create every possible redirect, including clear spelling errors. As someone said above, this might be construed as vandalism, so consider yourself warned... -- Cid Highwind 10:03, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Archive' as soon as humanly (or whatever you may be... coughshrancough) possible. Just looking at this gives me a headache, and I think it's obvious there's no clear consensus (ie this won't be a 2/3 delete vote), so we err on the side of keeping and move on. For what it's worth, I think we should keep it, although I think my opinions above probably resemble John Kerry's voting record... --Schrei 11:14, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Archived' --Alan del Beccio 06:30, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)